Abu Ghraib

“Torture”

October 23, 2011

            Is torture a necessary tool in order to protect America and its allies? I think that torture is necessary, but with limitations. What do I mean by that? There are many forms of “torture” that could be considered humane in order to get information from an enemy. What we saw about the torture going on at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was inhumane torture. Under any circumstances was that for of torture necessary. And for the people involved to take it was a joke, all deserved to be punished. What I am confused about is why did anyone stop it? Where all of the superior officers, and what were wasn’t this reported? As an American it hurt me to see the men that are fighting for me overseas involved in senseless torture. The government justifies this torture as necessary to obtain information from suspected terrorists, but is it necessary to humiliate a GROWN man by putting his underwear over his head, and cuffing him to the railing? What exactly is this going to accomplish? The United States military has really made them look “STUPID!” There is no justification to the type of torture that they were using to obtain information. Arresting ordinary citizens off the street because they are linked to a suspected terrorist isn’t right. What if the military started arresting ordinary citizens from the streets of the US because they are related to a suspected terrorist, and started to deprive them of their everyday rights? What would we do? I know exactly what we would do, we protest all the way to Washington, DC to let President Obama know how we felt about this! So why do we allow this to go on in Iraq. That’s simple, because if we don’t see anything happening then we assume when we hear something that it isn’t true. So it’s the out of sight out of mind syndrome that we use to justify not saying anything about the torture at the prison. Everyone that played a part in this event does need to held accountable. The tortures at Abu Ghraib may have gotten “MI” military intelligence, the information that was needed to capture key players in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but that doesn’t mean America is any safer. Why didn’t the Bush administration handle these allegations before leaving office in 2008? I feel that the Bush administration knew about these forms of torture but chose not to do anything because they justified it as for the “greater good” of the American as the reason for doing so. This is clearly a case of abuse of power, and needs to be investigated thoroughly, from the military men and women involved, to President Bush, and to the defense secretary.

G20 Response

G20 Response

10/18/2011

            I’ve heard of the G20 Summit and I always knew when it was taking place, but I really didn’t know what the focus point of this summit was until class. I feel that the summit deals with what would be in the best interest of the world. I don’t think the summit is not needed, because if we just stopped having the summit who would deal with the financial issues of the world. These heads of states that attend to the conference are elected by their countries citizens to look out for what’s best for the county and its people, so I don’t think the whole summit is pointless. If we somehow where able to stop this summit, then who would make our financial decisions for us? Are we as “ordinary” people capable of doing that? If that was the case then why didn’t you or I run for office? I think citizens desire more ability to have their voice heard, when it comes to policy making but when you get that chance to be heard, what are you going to actually say? You could wine, and complain that the various governments aren’t doing what they need to do to protect their citizens, but in actuality WE voted them in. So the only best solution is to vote them OUT! I support change, if it’s going to benefit us all and not just one particular group. These people that protest at things like the G20 Summit, are not speaking for EVERY person.  A lot of these people want things changed that will benefit them and not all of us as a whole. Protests to me aren’t necessary, point blank! Most protests lead to violence, and what is violence going to solve? There are other ways to get your voice heard without protesting. Did these people protesting at the G20 summit accomplish what they set out to accomplish? In my opinion NO! The just disturbed the peace and tranquility of a community without regards to how the people that actually live there feel. Protesters come in, cause a disturbance, unlawfulness, chaos, and etc., and then leave. What’s the point of doing this? Nothing is going to change because people decided to protest the G20 summit. The world’s richest countries will continue to have these summits years after years, and they will still continue to make decisions. Ordinary citizens aren’t capable of making decisions of this magnitude so I am all for my elected officials making certain decisions. I may not agree with the decisions, but hey, I voted for this particular person, so I get what I voted, and next time I will know not to vote they back in. Protesting gets nothing solved; people get hurt, killed, locked up, so again I say what’s the point?

ENG 102 Informative Draft

Anthoney Murray

September 13, 2011

ENG 102

MW 11:00-12:15

Subject

                I have chosen to write my informative essay about the disrespect that President Obama has receive before taking the office of the president, and during his presidency. Like the men before President Obama, he deserves respect, maybe not because he is the person holding the office, but because of the office of the president. I will say that people don’t have to respect him, but they have to respect the office. Never in history has a president been so disrespected than President Obama. Some say that it’s not disrespect, its disagreement with his policies; there is a difference between disrespect and disagreement. You can look at many news outlets and when referring to President Obama, they use “Mr.,” in its place. I will say that it’s appropriate sometimes, but 90% of the time people refer to him as Mr. Obama.

Why is this important

                This topic is important to me, because I want to prove to my intended audience that the reason that President Obama is the most disrespected president in history is due to his race. And that racial tension still exists in the United States even in 2011. I want people to know about this subject simply because it’s time for a change. President Obama’s slogan for the 2008 Presidential campaign was “CHANGE”! Change should have come when majority of the nation voted for their first African American president. If you didn’t want him as your president, leader of the free world, then why vote him in office?

My Intended Audience

                My intended audience are people who don’t understand why the disrespect of President Obama is not only offensive to African American but to other races as well. Also, to disrespect President Obama, is to disrespect the office of the president, and what it stands for.

Bibliography

Harlem English. “Is Obama the Most Disrespected President Ever?”

                http://www.harlemenglish.com/2011/09/is-obama-the-most-disrespected-u-s-president-ever/

the giro. “Obama faces historic disrespect from political peers”

                http://www.thegrio.com/politics/obama-faces-historic-disrespect-from-both-sides-of-the-aisle.php

The First Post. “Disrespect! Republicans avoid Obamas big night”

                http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84217,people,news,disrespect-republicans-avoid-barack-obamas-big-speech-night-

USARISEUP.com “Blatant Disrespect of President Obama: Racism or Double Standard?”

                http://www.usariseup.com/national-collegiate-dialogue/blatant-disrespect-president-obama-racism-or-double-standard

Huff Post “Black Baptists Decry “Disrespect” Direct At Obama”

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/black-baptists-decry-disr_n_927286.html

ENG 102 Response 4

ENG 102 Response 4

“Why a Michigan High School is Ground Zero for US Politics”

August 30, 2011

                On April 22, 2011, “The Rachel Maddow Show,” a show on MSNBC, featured a school in the Detroit Public school system, by the name of “Catherine Ferguson High School.”  This is a school that is for pregnant teen mothers, and teen mothers who have already had children, to get an opportunity to earn a high school diploma and attend college. This segment is about the issues the school faces to stay open, when the city government, whom are which taken over by the Detroit Public Schools Emergency Manager, decides to close the school if they couldn’t find a private company to take it over. The Detroit Public Schools Emergency Manager  basically comes into the city of Detroit and tells them that the people that they have elected to office is only for show, meaning, they have no real power to make decisions about the city. The DPSEM, figures that sense the local elected politicians can’t get the city of Detroit back to its former glorious, prosperous days that they needed to step in and do it themselves. The DPSEM, thinks that this school is somewhat costly to run, and therefore has decided that this school will be one of the schools, that will be eliminated from the school system. The students and teachers protest this decision, and end up getting arrested by the local police, and their cries to be heard go unanswered because the local police turn on the sirens to drown out the protests from the cameras.

                This whole story focuses on what “The Rachel Maddow Show,” calls “REALLY REALLY REALLY, BIG GOVERNMENT!” The story focuses on the government being given unlimited power to take over local cities and towns, and make desions for them. The million dollar question that I want to know, and what the citizens of Detroit want to know, is how can the government come in and say that the people you have elected to office to make decisions for you, no longer matter? This is a prime example of how not to run a school system. Does the government think that my taking power from elected city officials that the Detroit Public School System will be better off? I understand the reasoning behind the government stepping in to govern the school system, but what I don’t under is how it’s going to make the school system better. If the state government is saying that the city elected government isn’t capable of running their own schools, then what makes them think they can? Is it because they feel that since they are the “BIG” government, that school officials are more likely to fall in line to what they feel the schools should be doing?

                I am appalled to know that the government could come in at any moment, and take over my cities public school system, just because they feel that they can do a better job than the elected officials. I feel that once a community has elected someone to an office, they are assuming that this person is capable of doing the job. Electing people to office to govern them makes people feel powerful, but if you take that away it makes them feel powerless. Don’t get me wrong, if the elected officials are living up to their job then they should be voted out, and someone who is capable of doing the job, should replace them. The US school systems have been the same for many years, as a matter of fact, since the founding of the United States, many years ago.

                According to Sir. Ken Robinson, since the founding of the US the school system hasn’t changed and is being run like a factory. Well maybe it’s time for the school system to change, but not get taken over by the state government. There are a few reasons why local schools should be taken over by the state government, and those reasons could be lacking of city funding to run special programs, the city government is corrupt, and if the school system doesn’t improve it could loose federal funding. Taking over a school system just because, is unacceptable. Isn’t the US a democracy, what happened to the right of its people to elect to office whom they choose?

Resources: dialogic.blogspot.com, "The Rachel Maddow Show"

ENG 102 Response 3

ENG 102

Response 3

“Someplace Like America”

In the book entitled “Someplace Like America,” by Dale Maharidge, with a foreword by Bruce Springsteen, both writers talk about their experience traveling through America, and experiences living among “REAL” Americans. They talk about living among, the homeless, the unemployed, the wealthy citizens, whom fall from grace due to the economic downturn, to all walks of life. The journey of this book begins in Santa Barbara, California 1984. It begins with the murder of a homeless man by the name of Kenneth Burr. His friends think that he was murdered by the people of the small town, because they didn’t want the homeless people around. The homeless, where treated with disrespect, like second class citizens, by the locals and the police. A man murdered, goes uninvestigated, with no one being held accountable for the murder.  The Arthur of this book couldn’t believe that this was happening in America!  America was supposed to be the land of freedom, where everyone was supposed to be equal, but the readers of this book, would soon come to find out that it wasn’t true. The way you are treated in America is based on class, race, religion, and career.

                Many Americans tend to think that because you’re a homeless person like Kenneth Burr that you don’t deserve respect and those they can run over you, and treat you any kind of way. The incident that happened in Santa Barbara was very unfortunate and most people, as a matter of fact, many people could careless, except for people that actually treat others with decency no matter what their situation is. Many people are homeless today, because of the economy problems that we are having at the moment.  In today’s society the people on Wall Street that cause the economic problems are still living well, while ordinary people are suffering.

               

                The purpose of this forward from this book, was to give your insight about events leading up to peoples situations, and the financial crisis that is going on now in America. It also is informing us about how was as Americans treat others that are down on their luck, how we try to hide the situation rather than fix the situation. Americans always talk about every is equal, and deserves fair treatment, but where was this compassion when it came to Kenneth Burr? Why was he treated without care simply because he was homeless? America talks a big talk, but in reality if anyone just took a look about our morals, how would they really judge is?

Resources: "Someplace Like America" by Dale Maharidge

ENG 102 Response 2

“Response to Casey Anthony Article”

In the article, entitled “Thoughts on the Casey Anthony Trial,” the writer gives their thoughts and opinions about the case. The writer talks how the media portrayed Casey Anthony, and that it, the media, launched a full out attack on women’s liberation, reproductive rights, etc. The writer also states that they agree with the jury’s verdict, that they prosecution had not proven its case, beyond a reasonable doubt.  She goes on to express how the prosecution had “holes” in their case, and that the case was doomed to fail from day one.  It is the writers expressed opion that she agrees with the verdict in the trial, but also states that she doesn’t know is Casey Anthony murdered her daughter either.

                In my response to this article, I would like to know what make the writer think that the media was attacking women’s rights. I believe that Casey Anthony was treated just like any other person on trial for a crime. I do believe that the media did spend too much time covering this case, when there where similar cases going on at the time of the Casey Anthony trial. What made this trial so much more “special” than the other ones going on across the country? I think that the Casey Anthony trial was cover so much, because she was young, from a well off family, and what America considered suburbia. I often wondered if this had been a young woman, who was from a well off family, and grew up on the other side of the tracks, would the media had given it as much attention, and the answer to that million dollar question, would be no.

                The writer also talks about the “holes” in the prosecution’s case. I agree to a certain extent that the prosecution was just a little ill prepared for this case. I believe that they assume that this was a winnable case, simple because of the degree of the crime, and what evidence that they had would be suffice. The prosecution may have been a little on the assumption that they would win because of the nature of the crime, and all of the media attention that the case received. I however do not believe that the prosecution’s case had many “holes” as the writer has stated. I think there might have been a few “holes” but not as many, as stated in the article. The prosecution could only work with that evidence that was found at the crime scene, and from eye witnesses. There where to many obstacles that prevented the prosecution from obtaining certain evidence. For example, during the time of the search for the missing child, there was a tropical storm, which washed away the child’s body from the original burial spot, along with any type of evidence.

                In the article, the writer states that she agreed with the verdict of not guilty. I don’t support that verdict at all. I believe that there was ample evidence to convict Casey Anthony of murder. I just think that it was present well to the jury, in which, they return with a not guilty verdict. We as Americans will never know what happened to Casey Anthony’s daughter, and she may have been found not guilty by a jury of her peers, but will she be found not guilty, by public opinion? Casey Anthony will never be innocent in the most Americans eyes. Some media outlets even state, that there will be no place in the US that Casey Anthony will be able to live a normal and safe life. I would have to agree with the media, every place she would go, she would have to live in seclusion, and never show where face. In the end, we will never know if she killed her daughter, but I believe in my opinion that it is safe to say that she had some part in her daughter’s murder.

Resources: http://dialogic.blogspot.com/2011/01/hum-221-peace-studies-contemporary.html

Things About Me....

Q) Where do you come from?

A) I was born and raised in Lexington, KY

Q) What are your experiences with writing?

A) My experience with writing has only been in english courses, either in highschool, and now in college. I've never been a big fan of wirting, but I have always done well.

Q) What are your beliefs?

A) I am a big believer in God. My religion is very important to me, and I am very passionate about it, but I do not force it on anyone else.

Q) Why are you in college?

A) I am in college because I want to do something with my life, and also it's safe to say that my parents would cut me off if I didn't attend school, :)

Q) What culture are you into?

A) I can not really say what I am into. I am not into one particular culture. I will try anything once, or listen to anyone.